Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
27 June 2003
Hearing Officer
Mr M Knight
The Silver Spring Mineral Water Company Ltd
Loblaw Companies Limited
Section 5(2)(b)* (*At this re-hearing (see below) this was the only ground pursued).


Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful.

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Comparison of the marks PC (in stylised script) v PC CLEAR.


This was a re-hearing of an opposition (see BL O/111/02) at the direction of the Appointed Person (see BL O/433/02) who had ruled that the original finding of the Registrar’s Hearing Officer was flawed in that it was partly based on a legal argument to which neither party had had an opportunity of reply or of making fresh submissions.

The Hearing Officer at this re-hearing considered that whilst the whole of the original decision had been remitted, it was generally agreed that only the Section 5(2)(b) finding was in dispute.

Since neither party disputed that the goods at issue were identical or similar, the matter came down to a comparison of the mark. These, the Hearing Officer decided, were PC, in a stylised script form, and PC CLEAR. The CLEAR element of the mark could, in the Hearing Officer view, be a descriptor of the goods concerned. In the result he found a likelihood of confusion and the opposition under Section 5(2)(b) succeeded, reversing the original finding.

His award of costs was directed solely at the costs of the re-hearing.

Full decision O/183/03 PDF document45Kb